Stephen Hawking Needs Hugs

Originally posted by twhitehead
Evolution is blind and often leads to dead ends. It knows nothing of the future and where machines may lead us.
However, the ability to build machines is clearly quite useful right now.

Now please explain why God with all his foresight would give us such dangerous abilities.

You still haven't addressed the issue. I'm not here to argue the merits or lack thereof for evolution; I am merely considering how an evolutionist would explain the apparent incongruity of the situation named.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You still haven't addressed the issue. I'm not here to argue the merits or lack thereof for evolution; I am merely considering how an evolutionist would explain the apparent incongruity of the situation named.

Which issue have I not addressed?
It is obvious to anyone that societal behavior is beneficial to practically all species and thus we expect it to arise through evolution.
And practically all species display societal behavior in one form or another.

We could go further into the details if you like, but you seem to be pretending to be incredulous that the desire for a hug should be beneficial when I am quite sure you are well aware of its benefits. You reluctance to answer my counter questions only demonstrates that you fully realize this. After all, the only real answer you could give to the question: "why did God make us desire hugs?" is "because it is beneficial to us".

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You still haven't addressed the issue. I'm not here to argue the merits or lack thereof for evolution; I am merely considering how an evolutionist would explain the apparent incongruity of the situation named.

I would imagine that the desire to be with one's offspring/family (home is where our loved ones are) could be easily explainable by evolutionary arguments.

Can you point out why you think it can't?

I would like to hug Stepehen Hawking. I'd hug and squeeze him to DEATH!😠

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In a recent article, Stephen Hawking had the following exchange with his interviewer:

Q. You have three successful children and three grandchildren. You’ve obviously taught them a lot. What have they taught you?
A. They have taught me that science is not enough. I need the warmth of family life.

[emphasis added]

Curious that ...[text shortened]... explained--- as far as I can imagine the evolutionary view--- is the desire for hearth, home.

What cannot be explained--- as far as I can imagine the evolutionary view--- is the desire for hearth, home.

Are you being serious? These kinds of prosocial attitudes in relationships of high genetic relatedness are easily understandable within evolutionary framework.

Originally posted by duecer
I would like to hug Stepehen Hawking. I'd hug and squeeze him to DEATH!😠

Stephen Hawking would KICK your ASS!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which issue have I not addressed?
It is obvious to anyone that societal behavior is beneficial to practically all species and thus we expect it to arise through evolution.
And practically all species display societal behavior in one form or another.

We could go further into the details if you like, but you seem to be pretending to be incredulous tha ...[text shortened]... ive to the question: "why did God make us desire hugs?" is "because it is beneficial to us".

It is obvious to anyone that societal behavior is beneficial to practically all species and thus we expect it to arise through evolution.
And practically all species display societal behavior in one form or another.
Ah, I see. So it is obvious that one must be selfish (protecting one's own progeny, to the exclusion of all others) in order to serve the greater good. Not sure how I missed that one.

As LJ furthers, you're missing the tree for the wood.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]What cannot be explained--- as far as I can imagine the evolutionary view--- is the desire for hearth, home.

Are you being serious? These kinds of prosocial attitudes in relationships of high genetic relatedness are easily understandable within evolutionary framework.[/b]

I think I'm being serious. Are you reading?

The point goes beyond duty. Hawking, like most folks, is driven by his desire for affection, not by his desire for copulation and its attendant responsibilities. This is beyond have-to's, treading into the land of want-to's.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think I'm being serious. Are you reading?

The point goes beyond duty. Hawking, like most folks, is driven by his desire for affection, not by his desire for copulation and its attendant responsibilities. This is beyond have-to's, treading into the land of want-to's.

Based on what you've posted here, it seems that you either really need to read up on basic evolutionary theory or you've created a straw man in your mind in order to make it easier for you to attack. I suspect it's the latter. It's the way you seem to roll. Truly remarkable. Either way, I suggest you remove all your current conceptions and do a little reading. You've already been given enough information to point you in the right direction...just read with that in mind.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ah, I see. So it is obvious that one must be selfish (protecting one's own progeny, to the exclusion of all others) in order to serve the greater good. Not sure how I missed that one.

As LJ furthers, you're missing the tree for the wood.

I am not following.
As is usual with you, you seem to be hinting at an argument, but not actually stating it.
What is this tree that I am missing?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Based on what you've posted here, it seems that you either really need to read up on basic evolutionary theory or you've created a straw man in your mind in order to make it easier for you to attack. I suspect it's the latter. It's the way you seem to roll. Truly remarkable. Either way, I suggest you remove all your current conceptions and do a little rea ...[text shortened]... given enough information to point you in the right direction...just read with that in mind.

Lessee... it took you six edits to cough up that off-topic filler, while still avoiding addressing the question, and I'm the one with the deficit?

Try again, will you? Quit trying to read between the lines and simply see what's on them.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Lessee... it took you six edits to cough up that off-topic filler, while still avoiding addressing the question, and I'm the one with the deficit?

Try again, will you? Quit trying to read between the lines and simply see what's on them.

lol. You're probably the only one who evaluates the quality of a post based on the number of edits. Truly remarkable.

Sorry to say, I saw what's on them. Seriously, "remove all your current conceptions and do a little reading. You've already been given enough information to point you in the right direction...just read with that in mind."

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not following.
As is usual with you, you seem to be hinting at an argument, but not actually stating it.
What is this tree that I am missing?

It's much more simple than you give me credit for, truly.

Herr Stephen represents the pinnacle of man's quest for knowledge, what it's all about. Explaining away the mystery to reveal there's no need for God, and all that good stuff.

His quest--- like all like-minded campaigners--- is to sort it out: explain how it all came to be. The evolutionist can explain those crusaders. They'll say these holy sees are inherently "designed" to make us stronger. With the knowledge imparted, we figure out the game, figure out how to manipulate it to our advantage, get better, get stronger, become more invincible. Makes sense, really.

The drive can be explained, can be readily fit with an evolutionary model of life. What cannot be explained--- what hasn't even been stabbed at yet--- is why a person with such an obvious drive as SH would openly admit that this drive isn't enough to satisfy, isn't enough to quench his thirst.

Counter-intuitively, he states that the drive for knowledge falls short of his desire for the love and affection of his family, his friends. The juxtaposition here is the distinction between duty and affection. He doesn't cite his duties as husband, father, brother, son, friend, as holding sway. He cites the warmth derived from the relational aspects of those connections.

Not duty, love.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. You're probably the only one who evaluates the quality of a post based on the number of edits. Truly remarkable.

Sorry to say, I saw what's on them. Seriously, "remove all your current conceptions and do a little reading. You've already been given enough information to point you in the right direction...just read with that in mind."

I submit: you're still missing the point, friend.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I submit: you're still missing the point, friend.

Well, I'm reasonably sure TW, P, LJ and I are on the same page or close to it. You can insist on believing that we're all "missing the point", but if you could set your ego aside and do as I suggested, you'll see that your "point" is largely based on misconceptions about evolution on your part.